linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] param: Adapt MN10300 to the new parameter handling regime

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200812071951.18907.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:51:18 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] param: Adapt MN10300 to the new parameter handling regime

On Friday 05 December 2008 23:25:22 Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Friday 05 December 2008 22:28:16 David Howells wrote:
> > With that, the core_param stuff does work for mem=...
...
> > It should, perhaps,
> > appear in /proc/cmdline, but for some reason it does not.
> 
> Hmm, that's more concering.  I'll dig into this in the morning.

OK, I can't reproduce it.  I was thinking some weird corner case
with not restoring the string in parse_args, but putting in a dummy
"mem" core_param() on x86 works as first, middle and last arg on cmdline,
and command line shows up correctly in /proc/cmdline.

Any chance I can ask you to verify that?  Is the commandline printk'd
on boot also wrong?

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/